Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[F1fan]

I didn't say it is reliable and it certainly isn't for everyone.

I said it is far more widely applicable and will now add that it is often the only way to experiment design and often the route that was taken to good hypothesis.

Yet a hypothesis still needs to be rooted in facts and data, and a strict methodology.

Intuition and imagination can sometimes be almost as valuable as the "truth".

Sure, flip a coin. Roll some dice. Make an arbitrary guess. Adopt an ideology. All can sometimes be almost as valuable as throwing a dart blindfolded.

But reasoning is more reliable if you want valid conclusions.

 

[Yazata]

A thread that started out as a friendly request by a self-avowed "atheist" for others to explain why they "believe in God", has predictably turned into episode #2873496 of the never ending atheist vs religion battle.

It's just stupid.

If theists are being asked to give their reasons for believing in God, they need to be given the space to do so, without feeling that by sticking their necks out and writing about something emotionally very important to them, they are just inviting decapitation by a bunch of belligerent a**holes.

 

[F1fan]

Many of the best thinkers today are scientists. It's a shame that science has become so broad that there are so many specialties and some scientists become wholly caught up in them instead of more general thinking but it hardly matters except to fields which are held in such low esteem to believers in science such as philosophy and applied science.

That is the nature of expertise. As science discovers more and more there is more to investigate, learn, and understand about more specific areas. Even in medicine there are specialties that a general practitioner isn't capable of treating.

 

[cladking]

Yet a hypothesis still needs to be rooted in facts and data, and a strict methodology.

No, it does not. Not at all. It doesn't even need to make sense or sound plausible. It doesn't even need to agree with existing theory or mathematics.

It merely needs to be tested by experiment. This is what few scientists do any longer; falsify hypothesis through experiment. This leaves the believers in science to bandy about hypothesis as fact and a reflection of reality in which relatively few people believe anyway.

Sure, flip a coin. Roll some dice. Make an arbitrary guess. Adopt an ideology. All can sometimes be almost as valuable as throwing a dart blindfolded.

But reasoning is more reliable if you want valid conclusions.

There may be a great irony here but I'm not at liberty to identify it at the nonce.

 

[F1fan]

A thread that started out as a friendly request by a self-avowed "atheist" for others to explain why they "believe in God", has predictably turned into episode #2873496 of the never ending atheist vs religion battle.

It's just stupid.

If theists are being asked to give their reasons for believing in God, they need to be given the space to do so, without feeling that by sticking their necks out and writing about something emotionally very important to them, they are just inviting decapitation by a bunch of belligerent a**holes.

1. Who is NOT giving theists adequate space to explain their reasons?

2. And this is debate, and you are admitting that theists might be too fragile to explain their reasons without risk of criticism? Perhaps they have something to learn from this exercise. If the reasons are rational then what is the dilemma? If it is via faith, and faith is reliable, then what is the dilemma?

3. And who exactly is being an *******? Do you consider any debate to indicate a person is an *******?

 

[F1fan]

No, it does not. Not at all. It doesn't even need to make sense or sound plausible. It doesn't even need to agree with existing theory or mathematics.

Sorry, but a hypothesis needs to make an observation, make a prediction, propose a test to demonstrate the prediction is 99.95% true statistically, then explain a way to do this test by using facts, data, and other theories if applicable. Basic science.

It merely needs to be tested by experiment.

You make it sound so simple. It isn't. I suspect you have no knowledge of how science works.

This is what few scientists do any longer; falsify hypothesis through experiment. This leaves the believers in science to bandy about hypothesis as fact and a reflection of reality in which relatively few people believe anyway.

This is meaningless.

There may be a great irony here but I'm not at liberty to identify it at the nonce.

Almost as if you have no argument to make.

 

[Ostronomos]

No Gods are known to exist, nor is the category of supernatural phenomenon gods fall into. So this is not a credible option to explain anything.

Pick an option known to exist that can explain an effect.

In actuality God is accepted in science and is no longer in the realm of theology. Look up self simulation principle.

 

[cladking]

Sorry, but a hypothesis needs to make an observation, make a prediction, propose a test to demonstrate the prediction is 99.95% true statistically, then explain a way to do this test by using facts, data, and other theories if applicable. Basic science.


You make it sound so simple. It isn't. I suspect you have no knowledge of how science works.


This is meaningless.



Almost as if you have no argument to make.

Gainsaying means nothing. You'll have to actually address some point in the post to get further response.

Many scientists don't believe in reality just like many believers in science don't believe in reality. So they come up with hypotheses like reality is a hologram or there were an infinite number of ramps to build pyramids.

Science used to agree with experiment now it agrees with mathematics.

"Experiment" is a microcosm of reality itself in a laboratory and mathematics is just another perspective of reality. Reality in the lab is extrapolated to apply to the macrocosm. Just because something approaches zero or infinity in math hardly means it disappears in reality or that it suddenly occupies all of reality.

The rest of your post is meaningless gainsaying. Now you can deny this post but I will not respond.

 

[F1fan]

In actuality God is accepted in science and is no longer in the realm of theology. Look up self simulation principle.

Not in practical science. You are referring to modeling and "what if" type speculation.

 

[F1fan]

Gainsaying means nothing. You'll have to actually address some point in the post to get further response.

Sounds like you went down a dead end.

Many scientists don't believe in reality just like many believers in science don't believe in reality. So they come up with hypotheses like reality is a hologram or there were an infinite number of ramps to build pyramids.

Science used to agree with experiment now it agrees with mathematics.

"Experiment" is a microcosm of reality itself in a laboratory and mathematics is just another perspective of reality. Reality in the lab is extrapolated to apply to the macrocosm. Just because something approaches zero or infinity in math hardly means it disappears in reality or that it suddenly occupies all of reality.

These are vague statements. Complete your thoughts. Use examples if necessary.

The rest of your post is meaningless gainsaying. Now you can deny this post but I will not respond.

Your dead end again. You have views that aren't observed as true.

 

[Yazata]

What I said instead is pretty straightforward. I made 2 main points:

1. Beliefs inform actions and since atheism is not a belief but a DISbelief of a specific thing, it does not inform actions.

So what motivates all the anti-religious rhetoric from so many atheists? (Illustrated very eloquently in this thread.) Why are so many atheists so hostile towards religion and towards religious believers? Why all the knee-jerk dismissals? Why all the posturing as if atheists are the paragons of logic and reason, in a position to talk down to everyone else?

Something is seemingly going on here, something is informing those actions, that goes far beyond mere lack of theistic belief.

One would think that if atheists have IQs above room temperature, they would recognize the importance of the metaphysical, epistemological, psychological and existential issues that religion addresses. And if (as they so loudly insist) they don't have any preexisting beliefs about these matters, one would expect an attitude of openness and curiosity about the possibility of learning something important and new.

2. a sense of morality / ethics is inherent to the human condition and does not need to be "given" to us.

I agree that humans have social instincts. These instincts put all of us on the same page so to speak. We identify with our social groups (families, bands, tribes, nations...). We have a sense of reciprocity, the golden-rule thing, a sense of fairness. We have empathy, an awareness of what we take other people's inner states to be and (usually) a tendency to share something of their affective states ourselves ('emotional contagion' it's called in the literature).

Human societies construct more formal and codified moral principles atop that scaffolding. And just empirically, we discover that not all of those moralities are the same. So what happens if two people, or two societies, disagree about some fundamental ethical belief? Is there any underlying truth to the matter? Is there anything besides our own traditions and our own feelings, that informs our moral judgments? Is there any objective truth to the judgment that something that other people are doing is wrong and that they should instead behave like us? If so, what grounds it?

We are back at the familiar Is/Ought problem. We can construct all the evolutionary ethics we like, we can poke into neuroscience perhaps, to explain why people have the ethical intuitions that they do. But the question still remains, if both our moral intuitions and their moral intuitions can be explained in the same way, what determines that our intuitions are right and their's wrong?

As a secondary point, I said that even if a morality is given to us, we would have to necessarily use some other source of ethics in order to make a value judgement about that "given morality", to recognize it as "good" or "bad".

Yes, I agree with that. It's Plato's old Euthyphro problem. Does God command x because it is good? Or is x good because God commands it? So arguably religious ethics are in the same position as evolutionary ethics up above. I think that many theologians would address this problem by how they conceive of God. God is supposed to be the essence of Good or something like that. I'm not persuaded though and think that the problem still stands.

 

[paarsurrey]

Frustrated atheist asks why do you believe in God?

If Atheists are frustrated and or not satisfied with this ism, don't they deserve , in the first place, to return to the religion they were born in, please? Right?

Regards

 

[PureX]

1. Who is NOT giving theists adequate space to explain their reasons?

The problem is that you (and others) think they have to "explain their reasons" (to your satisfaction), as opposed to simply sharing them.

2. And this is debate, and you are admitting that theists might be too fragile to explain their reasons without risk of criticism? Perhaps they have something to learn from this exercise. If the reasons are rational then what is the dilemma? If it is via faith, and faith is reliable, then what is the dilemma?

The problem is that you (and others) think they have to "explain their reasons" (to your satisfaction), as opposed to simply sharing them.

3. And who exactly is being an *******? Do you consider any debate to indicate a person is an *******?

The problem is that you (and others) think they have to "explain their reasons" (to your satisfaction), as opposed to simply sharing them.

 

[F1fan]

The problem is that you (and others) think they have to "explain their reasons" (to your satisfaction), as opposed to simply sharing them.

That is the dilemma. Most of these discussions are debates over the reasonableness of religious beliefs. Fellowship, where certain assumptions are accepted, it is not. You seem frustrated that this is not fellowship.

The problem is that you (and others) think they have to "explain their reasons" (to your satisfaction), as opposed to simply sharing them.

It's your problem, not ours.

I'm sure there are plenty of fellowship options for those who don't want to debate their religious beliefs. Let them take responsibility for themselves. No one is forcing you to engage here, yet you do. And then you complain about there being criticism of various posts.

The problem is YOU choosing to debate when you don't like the effects of debate.

 

[PureX]

That is the dilemma. Most of these discussions are debates over the reasonableness of religious beliefs. Fellowship, where certain assumptions are accepted, it is not. You seem frustrated that this is not fellowship.

I am simply tired of watching the same people insisting that oranges be held up and judged by the criteria of bananas over and over and over and over, to no result (because oranges aren't bananas). One would think after a while they'd "wise up", but they never do.

 

[cladking]

These are vague statements. Complete your thoughts. Use examples if necessary.

Again, all you have is gainsaying. Finding new ways to say the other guy is wrong is NO ARGUMENT AT ALL. It's pathetic.

There's nothing "vague" about people seeing what they believe after choosing their beliefs. There's nothing vague about the simple fact we act on our models which are comprised solely of beliefs and experience. This is what every experiment shows and what every philosopher has said for 4000 years. The fact that it isn't often expressed this way is irrelevant.

I am simply maintaining that reality still exists despite these facts. I am saying that our brains are programmed by language creating "thought" and this is unique in the animal kingdom because other animals have no beliefs and no abstractions. A belief in science is still a belief. And it can be a highly limiting belief to the individual. It can be far more blinding than any religious belief because religion is founded on reality.

 

[F1fan]

I am simply tired of watching the same people insisting that oranges be held up and judged by the criteria of bananas over and over and over and over, to no result (because oranges aren't bananas). One would think after a while they'd "wise up", but they never do.

Bad analogy.

It's more a case of theists claiming there are oranges and bananas on a table that has nothing on it. You're upset because critical thinkers are pointing out the table has nothing on it.

 

[F1fan]

Again, all you have is gainsaying. Finding new ways to say the other guy is wrong is NO ARGUMENT AT ALL. It's pathetic.

There's nothing "vague" about people seeing what they believe after choosing their beliefs. There's nothing vague about the simple fact we act on our models which are comprised solely of beliefs and experience. This is what every experiment shows and what every philosopher has said for 4000 years. The fact that it isn't often expressed this way is irrelevant.

We understand the illusions people choose to believe, and that some think these illusions are real. We critics just point out these illusions are imaginary and not real as believers claim.

I am simply maintaining that reality still exists despite these facts. I am saying that our brains are programmed by language creating "thought" and this is unique in the animal kingdom because other animals have no beliefs and no abstractions. A belief in science is still a belief. And it can be a highly limiting belief to the individual. It can be far more blinding than any religious belief because religion is founded on reality.

Reality is verifiable with facts, data, and a coherent explanation. Religious belief doesn't offer this.

 

[cladking]

This is what every experiment shows and what every philosopher has said for 4000 years.

I'm reminded of an experimental psychology class I once took. It was one of the dumbest things I ever did.

Rather than actually inventing and performing experiment I made them up from scratch and made sure it was obvious always having results with an R ^ 2 = 1.

The prof never admitted he knew but he obviously enjoyed it and understood my points.

 

[cladking]

We understand the illusions people choose to believe, and that some think these illusions are real. We critics just point out these illusions are imaginary and not real as believers claim.

LOL.

Reality is verifiable with facts, data, and a coherent explanation.

And here we go again; homo omnisciencis.